About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
's important to remember george w. bush and karl rove have a brilliant strategy of outreach to the hispanic voters and a less successful. george bush won at least 40% of the vote. it's more like 40. stila does a remarkable accomplishment, and now he's pulling at best in the mid-20s with the hispanic vote and his own campaign said the need to reach 38% nationally to be competitive in the state where the latino vote will be critical, so the republican party lurched to the right in recent years instead of george w. bush, karl rove, john mccain. let's reach out to the hispanics and make reform something. it's become a party that mitt romney says there is a model he's promised a veto. the gerry before the radical policy prescription called deportation, the idea of making life so miserable here that immigrants are literally purged from the country so it's hurt badly but hispanics. the strategy, that strategy means as you point out in your excellent paper, really the southwest is out of reach in large part because of this. they've pulled off the mexico. they have a shot in colorado and nevada but
effectively. i think that's a better model. compare a huntsman to george w. bush. >> and marco rubio. i can imagine jeb bush is being the intellectual leader, but not running himself, maybe trying to see a rubio was not message of anti-and i can't get but further in this direction. i can sort of imagine that scenario. >> far be it for me to predict what republicans are going to do. i thought they're going to pass immigration reform in 2000, but i think jeb bush is going, he's positioning himself. he went to tampa and said we are acting stupid on immigration. is going to write a book and immigration reform. i think he's positioning himself to be the guy who is very conservative, catholic, he's got a great education track record but i think is going to be well-positioned to be, if we're going to modernize someone we feel safer, he could be the guy. >> one last word on the millennials since we did have that question. according to the data i missing, it doesn't look like obama shares the millennial vote, its operational shores -- is creeping up. he did win it 66-32 in 2008. he's not there yet,
an order to reopen the conviction of 51 murders. and the president, george w. bush, signed an order that attempted to order the state courts to obey the world courts. as solicitor general working for greg debora, on behalf of the state of texas, went before the supreme court and said that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally ignore the law. in fact, i use this exact same example. george w. bush is a republican, texas, i work for him and i admire him in many respects, but i fear unchecked executive authority. >> regardless of party. >> the supreme court struck it down. i have not heard a single voice in the democratic party of raising the question of why is it the president has the authority to ignore the law. that is a dangerous precedent. if president obama supports the dream that or anything else, he can push legislation through and have it considered. in san antonio, with the tax increase for increasing pre- school, you said to put it to the democratic process. i think that is the weight change should be done, not through executive assertions of a 40. >> thro
, and the same breath criticizes george w. bush for running wars on the credit card, he will say those like almost 1 cents after another without any since he is contradicting himself. there is polling there that says that's an effective line. it moves voters eric so it doesn't matter what the actual facts are. so that's, that's when -- >> i think fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and ideas and backgrounds. and any since he is trying to redefine what a fact is. pretty saying there are no objective facts, that it's just someone else's opinion about what we are saying. so, you know, it's kind of like redefining apology. they are redefining what are facts. >> also, let me add spent i don't want to be unfair to romney. my own view is that the attitude on the part of the obama campaign and the romney campaign is pretty much equivalent. the surprising things that somebody from either campaign said it out loud, and so shocked news editors who had been paying all that much attention previously. i mean, are there differences? to any of you see differences in attitudes of the
by the presidential reelected george w. bush, three left-wing billionaires, george soros, peter lewis raise $200 million for a series of organizations together and try to defeat president bush. so this type of structure had been found for a long period of time. another thing gone on even longer with labor union participation, specifically democrats. in election after election, it is the biggest spending of the labor unions. and when karl rove and ed gillespie started looking at the 2010 elections, they realized that while big labor, which is $400 billion to a public president upon the 2008, there was no corollary that existed on the right to spend large amounts of money for house and senate. so karl rove smartly started american crossroads. it was interesting. i was working across her as an and president obama actually attacked carr wrote in february seeking a legal money from china, which was funny. as soon as he said that comeau we saw an uptick in america grassroots funding. the reason for that was president obama had identified us and we ended up shattering her fund raising goals by the 2010
and president carter defeated. i remember interviewing president george h. w. bush and he's a i can't remember clinton and i will ever worked closely together and then barbara bush was refrained in the fifth son. [laughter] now he works with president george w. bush as well. at that time i was interviewing president bush is when i was doing a series of pieces on the president and the constitution and the same set of interviews i interviewed president ford and its the last time i saw hampshire and he said you know, i want to see what's going on in washington after his years in the house of representatives. when i was gonna norti lever of the house and you're father, my father was the majority leader of the house he said when we were a minority and majority leader they go down to feed press club or something and solomon say willie going to argue about clarke's piece said there's a legitimate d date. we genuinely disagree about the means to an end. and it was partisan. for heaven's sake we were the leaders of the party but then we get back and our best friends and go back to the hill and are able
were in charge during the george w. bush administration, there were at least a dozen attacks on u.s. embassies and consulates. you know, governor romney likes to use the term peace through strength which he borrows from ronald reagan. during the reagan administration, our embassy and marine barracks were bombs in beirut. and the last time these folks were in charge -- and believe me, it would be the same folks running the foreign policy establishment if you elected mitt romney -- these folks led us into the most disastrous foreign policy decision in a generation which was the invasion of iraq. it empowered iran, it created a trillion dollars of debt charged on the national credit card, it killed more than 4,000 americans, it wounded more than 30,000, it left hundreds of thousands of iraqis dead or displaced. and yet these folks want us to hand the keys of foreign policy back to them? it's, it's -- i mean, the nerve of the individuals who drug us into the worst foreign policy disaster in the middle east in a generation, to say that they somehow understand this region better is, it'
adviser to president george w. bush and is now in private practice in washington. ken, please. spec the panel starts off with a reference to playboy magazine, but i will see if i can catch my breath and go forward. thanks very much, pete. good to be here. i've been asked to talk about three cases. 1i guess you could call a national security case and then number to a more regular case. let me start with the national security case and that is called blabber versus amnesty international. it's actually standing case but it's a standing case relating to a challenge to what's called the fisa amendment act passed in 2008, and was an amendment through a very substantial amount of the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed in 1978, and to understand the standing issue of the stakes at play you have to understand the merits a little bit so let me get into them. >> for those watching on c-span, what is standing? >> the question of whether a party actually has the right to appear in court and to challenge come in this case to challenge the statute. .. just to get to the merits for a minut
of the this continuity between obama and george w. bush for that matter. so, any president in my view only changes things 10 degrees one way, 10 degrees the other. there will be some issues. obviously, you know, there's no question that romney takes a different view on how to deal with russia and you probably see a different policy towards russia. on iran is a harder call and one thing we have not spoken about, and i think maybe you were going to get to it eventually -- >> we are only 25 minutes in. >> okay. since i considered it to be not a and unreasonable possibility regardless of who was in the white house that the united states might end up with the desire because it has no choice engaging in the military action in iran, what is that going to do to all of the consensus about spending about whether the american people are registered in foreign policy and even the issues like the defense budget, and that's why it's issues like that and the ones the we don't even know about that make me weary of all of these street line projections that we are making in the future based on what things look like right n
for a candidate to say, but that's what he thinks about campaign. you can be a very serious president as george h.w. bush was. i just think electoral politics is not the world. i really don't understand. i hire these guys help me get over the finish line and i forget about these areas but it's not everyday to this point of view. i do think it is, it does mean you maybe can learn much about how he will govern from the campaign. and in president obama's caseys in such campaigning mode for months, and it's clearly, in his duties got to say the country from romney and the republicans, and, therefore, is going to get his 50.1% by cobbling together various groups say can either appeal to or scare him enough about the prospect of another republican administration. but i'm not sure anything he is saying is telling us what he would do in 2013. so it's a funny kind of, for a moment, i very much agree with jon, a device a big debate about the future of the country, we are not getting it. and i don't say that necessary critically. they both are doing what they feel they have to do, but it's a very small campai
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10